Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIMS: Her-2/neu testing is used as a marker for Herceptin therapy. The aim was to investigate new dual-colour chromogenic in situ hybridization (CISH), in a large number of breast carcinomas (n = 205) with DNA-specific dual-colour probes (ZytoVision, Bremerhaven, Germany) and to compare the results with immunohistochemistry (n = 205) and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) (n = 129). METHODS AND RESULTS: Paraffin-embedded tissue of 205 patients was used. After immunohistochemistry with a focus on immunohistochemically uncertain cases, Her-2/neu amplification using dual-colour CISH (ZytoVision) was analysed. Validation by FISH was performed. The results were: immunohistochemistry, 27.8% with strong expression, 53.7% with uncertain overexpression and 18.5% with no expression; FISH, 25.6% amplified and 74.4% negative; CISH, 35.6% amplified, 62.9% negative and 1.5% not evaluable. Comparison of immunohistochemistry with CISH: CISH negative in 100% with immunohistochemistry 0/1+, amplified in 82.5% with immunohistochemistry 3+; 5.9% contradictory results: 4.4% immunohistochemistry 3+ and negative by CISH, 1.5% negative in immunohistochemistry but amplified by CISH; FISH (129 cases), 8.5% contradictory results to immunohistochemistry, 6.2% immunohistochemistry 3+ and negative by FISH, 2.3% negative by immunohistochemistry and amplified by FISH; comparison of CISH and FISH, 94.6% same results, 3.9% different ones, 1.6% CISH not analysable. CONCLUSIONS: CISH, using dual-colour probes (ZytoVision) is as good as FISH for Her-2/neu analysis. The few discrepant results are likely to be caused by polysomy or tumour heterogeneity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mayr et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: